The Ron Paul appreciation thread!

[Aaron Smith]

I still think that the "states rights" diversion when discussing abortion and gay marriage is cowardly at best, especially since delegating something like gay marriage to the states essentially means that you don't think the 14th Amendment should apply to issues of sexual orientation.

I don't really see what part of his stance is "cowardly". The basic idea is simply that the federal government doesn't need to be involved in defining marriage in any way at all. If at a state level, the people who live there feel strongly enough in one way or another that they want laws on the books in their state, then they're free to do so. Personally I don't think even the states need to define it, but again...any opportunity to reduce the ever-growing power of the wasteful, self-serving federal government is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Also, the 14th amendment speaks to the rights of an individual, but the legal recognition of a relationship between two people, for the sake of greater tax benefit or whatever else, becomes about more than the individual, so it's not really fair to cite the 14th amendment as being in support of defining marriage—gay, straight, or in whatever other way someone wants to invent and call "marriage".

As far as the big ticket Paul issues, though, what've we got? Ending the Federal Reserve? I agree in principal that it's an institution that should not exist, but it's just not going to happen on a political level, and I don't think any of his proposed alternatives are really that great. Barter systems are too inflexible and "local tender" setups are almost as bad. Gold and silver as tender would require either huge deflationary measures or the entire world to take on the same system at the same time. Inflation is low and more or less easily predictable, so I'm not sure what problem it would solve at this point. Credit unions/state banks and interest-free treasury loans to eliminate the veritable middleman would work, but not well enough in our current system to make the change worth it without other huge reforms.

I'm not aware of multiple proposed alternatives from Ron Paul in relation to the Federal Reserve; he wants a full audit of the Fed, which is completely necessary and reasonable, and he wants to repeal legal tender laws, which would open the door for other currencies to circulate. Realistically, there wouldn't be a need for a whole slew of competing currencies; likely just a few would arise on the free market that would meet the demands of the consumer. If anyone simply wanted to keep using Federal Reserve notes, they would be free to do so, but over time it would become obvious to even the most uninterested and simple-minded people that Federal Reserve notes suck as a stable store of wealth. It's the tidiest and most reasonable way that we can transition away from our current unfair and doomed monetary system, to a system where American citizens aren't continuously being robbed by the Fed's inflation.

I understand why you would say that the two options for returning to a gold standard would be either huge deflationary measures or the entire world to take on the same system at the same time. It's reasonable to say the deflationary option is unrealistic, so what we're left with is the price of gold being fixed at a far higher US Dollar price than it is today (the "fair" price could best be decided by announcing Dollar-gold backing at a date in the near future, and allowing the market to find an equilibrium). I think it would probably be north of $5,000 an ounce, but there are compelling arguments out there for even higher figures. Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to say that the rest of the world would have to take on the gold standard, though. If the supply of US Dollars were fixed to gold, then if other currencies were expanded by their central banks, their value would fall in Dollar terms.

I'm onboard with his foreign policy, drug policy, and desire to greatly reduce the deficit, but not with the amount of social programs he wants to cut along the way.

Shouldn't foreign policy, drug policy, and deficit spending alone should be reasons enough to never cast a vote for a mainstream candidate ever again? Also, which social programs are you talking about? Ron would rather start hacking at foreign aid and all militaristic expenditures overseas long before making little old ladies on fixed Social Security incomes start to suffer. There are minimally disruptive ways of transitioning away from social programs that can not be realistically funded in the future.

I don't remember saying I love Obama's policies, although there are many I've been in support of. The man is still anti same-sex marriage, pro war on drugs, pro war in Iraq, and the forced-buy-in Obamacare system is bullshit. That said, the banking reforms he's instituted and a lot of the regulations on health insurance that were associated with Obamacare have been a step in the right direction IMO.

You definitely used the word "love" I think it was on Nate Miller's Facebook post where we got into a discussion about inflation, and he deleted the whole thread the next day. I can't remember what the picture was that he posted, but it was some kind of anti-Obama graph.

I might respond to the rest of this later, haha. Pretty tired right now.

 

[JeffTD]

I don't really see what part of his stance is "cowardly". The basic idea is simply that the federal government doesn't need to be involved in defining marriage in any way at all. If at a state level, the people who live there feel strongly enough in one way or another that they want laws on the books in their state, then they're free to do so. Personally I don't think even the states need to define it, but again...any opportunity to reduce the ever-growing power of the wasteful, self-serving federal government is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

Also, the 14th amendment speaks to the rights of an individual, but the legal recognition of a relationship between two people, for the sake of greater tax benefit or whatever else, becomes about more than the individual, so it's not really fair to cite the 14th amendment as being in support of defining marriage—gay, straight, or in whatever other way someone wants to invent and call "marriage".

It's cowardly in that it lets him get away with not giving an opinion on the issue - when people ask "do you support same-sex marriage," that's not what they're asking. The actual substance behind it is "are you morally opposed to homosexuality?" If you're not morally opposed to homosexuality, then there is no reason you wouldn't be in favor of them being treated as full and equal citizens under the law, which makes the 14th Amendment completely applicable. If a law is passed that outlaws same-sex marriage, it strips the individual of his/her rights as well as the couple.

This is completely ignoring the fact that, especially in this day and age, it is HUGELY impractical for the states to have differing legalities on marriage. God forbid a gay man is admitted to a hospital in a state other than the one he lives in and his husband is barred from visiting him or he isn't covered under his husband's insurance policy. What if a couple moves to a non-recognizing state because of a promotion or if it's the only place they can find a job? You can say that "that's the risk you take when you move, you need to consider the laws of the state before you move there," but that's ridiculous in the case of a marriage and is completely ignorant of the Full Faith and Credit clause.

There's also implications as far as hate crimes and employee discrimination to not including sexual orientation under the 14th, but that's another argument entirely.

I'm not aware of multiple proposed alternatives from Ron Paul in relation to the Federal Reserve; he wants a full audit of the Fed, which is completely necessary and reasonable, and he wants to repeal legal tender laws, which would open the door for other currencies to circulate. Realistically, there wouldn't be a need for a whole slew of competing currencies; likely just a few would arise on the free market that would meet the demands of the consumer. If anyone simply wanted to keep using Federal Reserve notes, they would be free to do so, but over time it would become obvious to even the most uninterested and simple-minded people that Federal Reserve notes suck as a stable store of wealth. It's the tidiest and most reasonable way that we can transition away from our current unfair and doomed monetary system, to a system where American citizens aren't continuously being robbed by the Fed's inflation.

I understand why you would say that the two options for returning to a gold standard would be either huge deflationary measures or the entire world to take on the same system at the same time. It's reasonable to say the deflationary option is unrealistic, so what we're left with is the price of gold being fixed at a far higher US Dollar price than it is today (the "fair" price could best be decided by announcing Dollar-gold backing at a date in the near future, and allowing the market to find an equilibrium). I think it would probably be north of $5,000 an ounce, but there are compelling arguments out there for even higher figures. Anyway, I don't think it's accurate to say that the rest of the world would have to take on the gold standard, though. If the supply of US Dollars were fixed to gold, then if other currencies were expanded by their central banks, their value would fall in Dollar terms.

I was just citing common alternatives suggested by his supporters - as far as I know, he himself has never given any alternatives which puts him in the same boat as Marx as far as I'm concerned on the issue.

Again, inflation is low and easily predictable; I'm really not seeing the whole 'being robbed' or 'doomed monetary system' thing as a legitimate concern. Are our dollars worth less than they used to be? Of course. In a disproportionate way? Not by any means whatsoever. Is our inflation rate comparable to virtually every one of our trading partners in the world? Most definitely. We've got a mini price-wage spiral going on, but it's well within the tolerance range for a stable economy. Simply put, I've seen zero credible evidence suggesting that our monetary system is on the verge of collapse or that it's severely screwing us over.

Your assertion of other currencies falling isn't accurate. Exchange rates aren't based entirely (or even mostly) off of inflation rates or the amount of money in circulation in a given economy

Shouldn't foreign policy, drug policy, and deficit spending alone should be reasons enough to never cast a vote for a mainstream candidate ever again? Also, which social programs are you talking about? Ron would rather start hacking at foreign aid and all militaristic expenditures overseas long before making little old ladies on fixed Social Security incomes start to suffer. There are minimally disruptive ways of transitioning away from social programs that can not be realistically funded in the future.

You definitely used the word "love" I think it was on Nate Miller's Facebook post where we got into a discussion about inflation, and he deleted the whole thread the next day. I can't remember what the picture was that he posted, but it was some kind of anti-Obama graph.

I might respond to the rest of this later, haha. Pretty tired right now.

Not when you're ideologically opposed in so many ways. Truth told, the more I think about it, the less likely I would be to vote for Paul if he ran against Obama. I cannot in good conscience cast my vote to a candidate who is anti-same-sex marriage, anti-choice, anti-nationalized health care, pro-Israel, and feels largely guided by his/her religion. I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for anyone in this race, realistically, but Obama ticks more boxes than Paul in that regard.

What he'd rather do and what he'd be able to do are two completely different things. There's no way he's pulling all of our troops home - that'd be a logistical nightmare. Unemployment rates would skyrocket once those troops got home and needed jobs, so it would have to be done slowly as to phase out the foreign bases. It's a process that would take 10-20 years, if not more, so he's going to have to cut into other things before we're going to see actual deficit reduction as a result of the lowered military spending.

I remember that graph, it was about national debt levels. If I said "love," it was in the context of "I love how Bush is lumped in with the group responsible for balancing the budget" since it was an every-president-ever vs Obama grouping. I have never and would never say I "love" any of Obamas policies unless it was the specifically referencing that I love not being able to get $35 overdraft fees and that I love that I can stay on my parents insurance until 25.

 

[metalkingdom]

Aaron does a great job of educating the ill-informed. Hopefully, people will recognize their arrogance and maybe explore the concepts and actually see the reality that is before them.

btw, I'm one of those libertarians that wasn't raised in the white upper middle class. There are legions of us, and the numbers are growing. I'd also advise to maybe not have such strong opinions until you've lived a little. It's a great thing to learn, question, and debate... But there's a point where the true intellectual recognizes where logic and facts override what you emotively are inclined to say and believe.

Watch this for something fun and educational -

http://youtu.be/d0nERTFo-Sk

http://youtu.be/GTQnarzmTOc

 

[SocialNumb]

I heard Ron Paul likes to kick and maim kittens.

 

[JeffTD]

Aaron does a great job of educating the ill-informed. Hopefully, people will recognize their arrogance and maybe explore the concepts and actually see the reality that is before them.

btw, I'm one of those libertarians that wasn't raised in the white upper middle class. There are legions of us, and the numbers are growing. I'd also advise to maybe not have such strong opinions until you've lived a little. It's a great thing to learn, question, and debate... But there's a point where the true intellectual recognizes where logic and facts override what you emotively are inclined to say and believe.

Watch this for something fun and educational -

http://youtu.be/d0nERTFo-Sk

http://youtu.be/GTQnarzmTOc

This is a pretty standard RP-suppoter rebuttal, and has been used throughout this thread numerous times. Instead of just patting your friends on the back and calling people who don't agree with you arrogant and ignorant of reality, why not actual explain what's wrong with their logic?

I've presented reasoned and rational arguments to key points asserted. If you'd like to respond in a measured and reasonable way, I encourage you to. Telling me I'm ill-informed and need to grow up instead does little to support your cause. You can't lecture me on not having lived a little and stressing logic/facts over emotion when you've offered none of the former.

I've seen the videos, hilarious and greatly entertaining. Half of the duo that made them is a professor at George Mason, though, which explains the Hayek bias in both.

 

[metalkingdom]

This is a pretty standard RP-suppoter rebuttal, and has been used throughout this thread numerous times. Instead of just patting your friends on the back and calling people who don't agree with you arrogant and ignorant of reality, why not actual explain what's wrong with their logic?

I've presented reasoned and rational arguments to key points asserted. If you'd like to respond in a measured and reasonable way, I encourage you to. Telling me I'm ill-informed and need to grow up instead does little to support your cause. You can't lecture me on not having lived a little and stressing logic/facts over emotion when you've offered none of the former.

I've seen the videos, hilarious and greatly entertaining. Half of the duo that made them is a professor at George Mason, though, which explains the Hayek bias in both.

I've spent the last 6 years fighting kids on the internet who swear that they know what they're talking about - when they don't - and I'm not doing it anymore. Nearly every single thing that you bring up has been refuted and dispelled by not only Ron Paul, but also by the intellectuals of freedom going back hundreds of years. You can do the reading and research yourself. Go put some of that stuff on any of the Ron Paul forums and see what happens. Hell, sign up for some classes at GMU. Those guys will certainly teach you a lesson in humilitation.

I thought I'd give some very experienced adult advice for a change around here, that's all. And the videos are much more than entertainment...

p.s. President Obama's personal chef and President Clinton's former campaign manager are very good friends of mine... Obama's chef (who is a history major from the University of Chicago) has lost many golf balls to the drink after challenging the positions of liberty with me, and Clinton's boy is now a Ron Paul supporter.

 

[JeffTD]

You make huge assumptions about who I am and what I do (and don't) know, but you know absolutely nothing about me. Instead of just saying that they've been refuted, actually do it. If you don't want to "fight kids on the internet," then don't bring it up at all. I was asked by a friend to explain why I am no longer (and I most definitely was) a proponent of the Austrian method and Ron Paul in general. You came in, said everything was shit, and responded to challenges with an "I'm too old for this, you're wrong, end of story" attitude. You can name drop all you want - it doesn't change the fact that you've said nothing to refute my legitimate questions regarding the ideology.

You talk about adult advice... If you want to have a measured, reasonable debate on policy an ideology, then I'm game. If you just want to circlejerk and talk shit about people who think differently than you do, then you might as well hang out on Ron Paul forums you mentioned.

 

[egan.]

Since there is little chance of an RP nomination I wonder if he could play politics enough to take a VP bid in a campaign. It would entail a level of party line towing that would alienate some of his supporters but it would also put him in a much better position to change things. There would obviously be a huge value to the Republican campaign if they were able to rally the libertarian and tea party folks who dislike Romney.
So would he do it? Is compromising his position in furtherance of his position a worthwhile venture to him/his followers?

 

[AD Chaos]

I agree with Jeff that the out of argument name calling -that is so typical of the webz- is uncalled for. In other words just because others don't agree with one's instances is not a justification to resort to personal and unfounded attacks. If anything it is largely counterproductive and polarizes the person against any point one actually tries to make.

But if you have been following the GOP debates, you will notice that Ron Paul is the one who stays clear of exactly those same attitudes coming from the other 3 candidates, who try to paint themselves as the 'alternative', when in reality they're only minuscule variations of the same old 'big government' that has been happening for decades now, which is the direct cause for the deterioration of America on many fronts.
Instead of resorting to try and bash others and paint himself as the big guy, Ron Paul uses actual arguments, reasoning and a look at the lessons of history to try and make people think for themselves, and hopefully persuade them with his intellect (which I find admirable), rather than force them in through the usual fear, lies and deceitful manipulations of sellout politicians.

People recognize this and see a man who is incorruptible, honest to them, and genuinely shows care and compassion for his countrymen. That ignites passion in people, and though I can somewhat sympathize to 'going against the trend' in any given scenario, in this case I must say it looks like you're trying to at least a bit too hard (that's just my opinion, of course).

About your arguments, for the most part you're making assumptions in the sense that 'well if he would go on to do this then this other thing might happen'. As great of a candidate he might be, you cannot realistically expect of him to lay out for you a fully detailed 4 or 8 year plan with all the possible solution to every little nuance and possible reaction from every side. At some point you have to have trust in that the candidate you choose will have the integrity, intelligence and moral authority to make the right decisions, change minds and round others around his cause.
Does Ron Paul have those qualities? Of course he does have them -and in abundance-. Needles to say, those are qualities extremely rare in a politician (or any human being, for that matter).

Does Obama? Of course not, give me a break on that one. He's proven a disaster of a president; he's weak, doesn't have any authority and only plays the blame game. REMEMBER he had his own party in congress for 2 years.. still he did little to nothing to fix things up as he promised.

Or else ask yourself a very simple -and irrefutable- question: Do you think the US is better off now than it was 4 years ago?
He's totally unprepared for the job, provokes further animosity amongst the parties with his utter lack of leadership and knowledge, and that of course ends up hurting the people.
I personally had a grudge against the guy from day one; he strikes me as devious, deceitful, incredibly arrogant, irresponsible, unprepared, I could go on..
That 'Obama-mania' spectacle seemed repulsive to me back in the day.

But I'll concede this, the man is a fantastic orator.. his last State of the Union speech -from a couple of weeks ago- was to me nothing short of impressive, for the most part.
If you didn't know him already, you'd really think he's the savior of America and the solution to all problems.
Why would you vote for another 4 years of him? Do you think he's going to somehow become a different person all of a sudden? The only reason I'd think of anyone casting a vote for him (anyone not benefiting economically from the current state of affairs, that is) would be to punish the GOP for their Romney imposing.

Not when you're ideologically opposed in so many ways. Truth told, the more I think about it, the less likely I would be to vote for Paul if he ran against Obama. I cannot in good conscience cast my vote to a candidate who is anti-same-sex marriage, anti-choice, anti-nationalized health care, pro-Israel, and feels largely guided by his/her religion. I cannot in good conscience cast my vote for anyone in this race, realistically, but Obama ticks more boxes than Paul in that regard.

I may be missing something here. Are you actually saying Ron Paul is anti-choice?? The one candidate who defends freedom above all?

- Anti-same-sex marriage? He doesn't take personal instances on matters of a personal nature, simply because he holds FREEDOM above them. That's not ''cowardly'' by any stretch. If anything, it is courageous.

- Pro-Israel? (when he's the ONLY one who wants to stay off Israel's affairs and let them have their own sovereignty and economic independence)

- Largely guided by his/her religion? I'm sorry there, but are you really saying that?

**Unless of course you're referring to someone else, in which case I should apologize for not understanding you correctly.


Obama is a proven fucking LIAR. What difference does it make if he -or any other candidate- promises you this world and another one beyond?


It looks to me like you're playing devil's advocate continuously, just so we extend on the discussion and some people might get a better understanding of him.. I want to believe that haha




*sorry for the editing of my posts - English is not my first language, so I'm not as articulate as I'd like.

 

[JeffTD]

I may be missing something here. Are you actually saying Ron Paul is anti-choice?? The one candidate who defends freedom above all?

- Anti-same-sex marriage? He doesn't take personal instances on matters of a personal nature, simply because he holds FREEDOM above them. That's not ''cowardly'' by any stretch. If anything, it is courageous.

- Pro-Israel? (when he's the ONLY one who wants to stay off Israel's affairs and let them have their own sovereignty and economic independence)

- Largely guided by his/her religion? I'm sorry there, but are you really saying that?

--Unless of course you're referring to someone else, in which case I should apologize for not understanding you correctly.

Obama is a proven fucking LIAR. What difference does it make if he -or any other candidate- promises you this world and another one beyond?

Anti-choice as in pro-life. Against the option to have an abortion.

He avoids admitting his personal stance by saying that he thinks it's a state issue - that's my issue with it. Instead of owning up and actually making a decision/admitting his stance on the issue, he defers it.

Israel doesn't deserve sovereignty and economic independence if it's gaining it on the backs of the disenfranchised Palestinians.

Yes, I'm saying that. Your political stances should not be influenced by your religious ideals - that's the whole point of the separation of church and state.

I could care less what you think of Obama, and I never said that I believed any 'promises' he's made, but I'm really not sure what you're saying in that last point - I think we're hitting a language barrier. I can't tell if you're referencing religion or a present/future distinction.

 

[outbreak525]

What I find to be completely absurd and absolutely backwards with the way we see our potential candidates is that they see Ron Paul as "undesirable" or an "old man" and pick on him because he talks funny or whatever. Truth is, what matters is what he's saying and the views he represents. Not if he's attractive or speaks well or what have you. The people loved Obama for the same reason they love Mitt Romney, whether it be money or the fact that they're attractive to the average American person.

We need the truth, and to recognize the media's bias.

 

[roy22341]

Who cares what his personal opinion is? He holds the constitution above any personal opinions he may have. That's what I want in a candidate - someone who puts the rule of law above their own personal interests.

 

[AD Chaos]

I hope you realize it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE by definition to have a personal opinion, on abortion -or any other matter of a personal nature- that will satisfy everyone. But what I think you have been missing is that what Ron Paul says, is that his personal opinion on a matter shouldn't become a political imposing on yours. The personal opinions of a person in charge shouldn't overrule your freedoms (protected by the Constitution). Take a listen to this speech carefully:



Israel doesn't deserve sovereignty and economic independence? Well, that doesn't sound very democratic to me.

I happen to think the fact that Obama doesn't deliver (or at the very least tries to do) as promised -or worse, only pretends to do... you could care about that. A LOT. It is a big deal, wouldn't you say?

Why are you saying that Ron Paul's religious belief affects his role as a politician? He's actually the opposite of the other four playing the religion card -as usual business- to attract gullible voters merely on a religious affiliation.
Take a look at these 2 bits (I've already posted one before):

Around 1h36m47s:



Listen to the other 3 afterwards, largely twisting his argument around.
Anyways, looking for a viable political candidate that opposes the concept of religion at it's core would be highly unrealistic as of today, and I don't expect to see that in my lifetime.

Somewhere in another speech I saw recently he addresses the religion thing in greater detail. I'll try to look it up and post it, but for now it's possible it could be in one of these somewhere:

 

[JeffTD]

Who cares what his personal opinion is? He holds the constitution above any personal opinions he may have. That's what I want in a candidate - someone who puts the rule of law above their own personal interests.

His personal opinion will affect how the Constitution is applied especially in cases of LGBT rights and the possibility of Constitutional Amendments involving same-sex marriage and abortion.

1. I hope you realize it's absolutely IMPOSSIBLE by definition to have a personal opinion, on abortion -or any other matter of a personal nature- that will satisfy everyone. But what I think you have been missing is that what Ron Paul says, is that his personal opinion on a matter shouldn't become a political imposing on yours. The personal opinions of a person in charge shouldn't overrule your freedoms (protected by the Constitution). Take a listen to this speech carefully:

2. Israel doesn't deserve sovereignty and economic independence? Well, that doesn't sound very democratic to me.

3. I happen to think the fact that Obama doesn't deliver (or at the very least tries to do) as promised -or worse, only pretends to do... you could care about that. A LOT. It is a big deal, wouldn't you say?

4. Why are you saying that Ron Paul's religious belief affects his role as a politician? He's actually the opposite of the other four playing the religion card -as usual business- to attract gullible voters merely on a religious affiliation.

5.Anyways, looking for a viable political candidate that opposes the concept of religion at it's core would be highly unrealistic as of today, and I don't expect to see that in my lifetime.

1. I realize that, but my above point in response to Roy stands. His personal opinion will influence his decisions in matters that are Constitutionally vague or undecided.

2. That's not what I said - you deliberately left off a hugely important par tof the point I was making.

3. I don't see the same conspiracy you're seeing. Has he gotten as much as he said he would done? No. Has any other president? No. Are his hands tied by how shitty our last few sessions of Congress have been? Definitely. None of this has anything to do with RP, though.

4. Because they will. He's not pandering, and while that's commendable (relative to the other candidates), it that doesn't change the fact that it'll influence his decisions.

5. I'm not asking for someone that opposes the concept of religion at its core (although that'd be nice in my own fucked up world), I'm asking for someone who doesn't hold it in such high regard and attribute his/her sense of morality and ethics to a bunch of esoteric rules made up 2000+ years ago.

 

[Doctor Gay]

i haven't read this thread, but ron paul is a fan of the gold standard. what a retard!

 

[Aaron Smith]

I'm onboard with his[...]desire to greatly reduce the deficit, but not with the amount of social programs he wants to cut along the way.

[...]pulling all of our troops home[...]would take 10-20 years, if not more, so he's going to have to cut into other things before we're going to see actual deficit reduction as a result of the lowered military spending.

You don't want to cut into social programs, and you think we need to spend 20 years slowly integrating all our troops back into the domestic economy. But, you want to greatly reduce deficit spending...so, what in the world do you suggest we do to get government spending under control? I hope you don't answer by saying that we just need to raise taxes on the rich.

Again, inflation is low and easily predictable; I'm really not seeing the whole 'being robbed' or 'doomed monetary system' thing as a legitimate concern. Are our dollars worth less than they used to be? Of course. In a disproportionate way? Not by any means whatsoever. Is our inflation rate comparable to virtually every one of our trading partners in the world? Most definitely. We've got a mini price-wage spiral going on, but it's well within the tolerance range for a stable economy. Simply put, I've seen zero credible evidence suggesting that our monetary system is on the verge of collapse or that it's severely screwing us over.

If you really believe that the government's inflation statistics are honest, and not actually cooked beyond belief, then you've been incredibly duped. The government doesn't give a single piss-squirt about honesty; all it wants to do is gain and consolidate power. On multiple occasions over the last 30 years, the government has tweaked certain details in how the numbers are calculated, supposedly always for the sake of increased accuracy, but the result has always been that the numbers go down, which of course only serves to justify and legitimize more rapid inflation and allows the government to act as if it's being responsible without actually having to be.

Also—just a couple weeks ago, the Fed formally announced an annual inflation target of 2%, but after years of referring to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' CPI figure when talking about inflation in press releases or conferences, they made their formal announcement using the lesser-known PCE index as the benchmark, which is reported instead by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Why the change? Because the CPI is already running at 3% annually, while the PCE is beneath 2%, and thus allows them more wiggle-room. Total BS move from the Fed...all they're doing is attempting to perpetuate the lie that they are the masters of inflation, that they are in control of the economy, and that everything is just fine.

Not to mention, even a 2% rate of inflation means that in only 20 years prices will have gone up by 33% percent...so the Fed is openly admitting that over a 20 year period, they intend to undercut the value of the currency by 33%, and that's when using the dishonest undercalculated figures. Check out John Williams' Shadow Stats, dude used to work for the government collecting statistics, and has a really good understanding of how the government likes to skew stats in its own favor. As you can see, if you simply go back to the methodology the government used to calculate inflation before 1980, we're currently running annual inflation rates of just over 10% today, and I don't find that hard to believe at all. Working at a grocery store up until about 15 months ago, it was pretty amazing to see how the prices on everything were either consistently increasing, or the package sizes were shrinking by 15-20% so that the sticker prices wouldn't have to go up.

You can't just excuse and justify inflation by saying that the rate seems to be generally proportionate to that of our trading partners' currencies, because that doesn't translate to price stability for people saving in Dollars, people on fixed incomes, or for the average person's wages keeping up with price increases. Dollar-holders get some of their purchasing power pulled out from under them, year after year, an there is no justifiable excuse. It's true that when interest rates are at a more normal range, Dollar-savers get some respite, but that still in no way excuses the theft. Just look at the historical gold-oil ratio...actually, hell—just price anything at all in terms of gold over the last 50 years, and try to explain to me why paper money is better than gold.

Anyway, I think the price of gold is a much more realistic medium/long-term indicator of how bad inflation actually is...and for over a decade, gold has been on a rocket ship that the Fed can't stop unless they crank up interest rates...and they can't crank up interest rates without plunging the economy into recession and crushing the already weak housing market, which they will only actually do when their own falsified inflation data starts to look dangerous, when the average man on the street really starts to get pissed about rising prices, and the price of gold is much, much higher than it is today. I really don't see how you can look at our debt burden (currently financed at record low interest rates), our weak employment numbers, and our weak economy being kept on life support by negative real interest rates, and proclaim that there is zero credible evidence suggesting that our monetary system is in serious trouble. Sure, the Fed can always buy our debt, but isn't that just the ultimate paper money end-game? How did that sheer kind of money printing work out for Zimbabwe?

You're giving the Fed WAY too much faith and credit, especially for being, in your own words, "an institution that should not exist". Props for selling your gold holdings at $1,880 last year, but my own motivation for holding gold has never been to try to time the ups and downs of the market to my short-term benefit (because that's basically a crap-shoot), but to hold it longer term and to have a genuine sense of safety that no matter what BS the government and the Fed are up to, I've "opted out" of the whole fiat money game.

 

[Aaron Smith]

i haven't read this thread, but ron paul is a fan of the gold standard. what a retard!

Yeah dude, Ron Paul is such an idiot... He was scooping up gold at $35 an ounce back in 1971 when Nixon announced that we were leaving the gold standard, clearly Ron understands nothing about money.

 

[Doctor Gay]

look i like ron paul. i Literally hope he wins, i choose not to vote but he won't win because people think he's crazy.

now maybe not as of the last 3 days, but we'll see tommorrow what gingrich, butt juice, and romney say.

 

[Aaron Smith]

 

[AD Chaos]

His personal opinion will affect how the Constitution is applied especially in cases of LGBT rights and the possibility of Constitutional Amendments involving same-sex marriage and abortion.

His personal opinion will influence his decisions in matters that are Constitutionally vague or undecided.

Because they will. He's not pandering, and while that's commendable (relative to the other candidates), it that doesn't change the fact that it'll influence his decisions.

I'm asking for someone who doesn't hold it in such high regard and attribute his/her sense of morality and ethics to a bunch of esoteric rules made up 2000+ years ago.

Why do you keep on saying that his personal beliefs will transfer into a constitutional MANDATE?
That's what every other politician thinks they're entitled to do.
And that is exactly what Ron Paul wants to change. He wants to give freedom back to the people.

Why would you -or anyone else- insist and keep on asking of a leader on what their position is on this and on that particular matter of a personal nature? You're supposed to live under a democracy, not under a religious-led kingship where one person gets to tell you what do with your own life.
That kind of over-the-top authoritativeness -that is violent in nature- is what I (and I'm sure lots of others) find so absolutely obnoxious and repulsive about religion.

Society is supposed to be moving away from that attitude, not back towards it. The one-size-fits-all, do-as-I-want-you-to mentality is a trait most definitely diametrically opposed to what a democracy is supposed to be.

And the argument about how he's going to leave every man for himself is obviously not valid. If anything he's the only one not trying to run dry the retirement funds of senior citizens who can no longer generate their own income, whilst at the same time screwing them over by butchering the value of their hard earned savings. I mean the man is a physician, and apparently an excellent one at that, from the testimonials of his patients.

Who do you think knows best about health care, a bureaucrat or a physician?

To leave a margin of sovereignty to States to vote and decide on their laws, that straightens the concept of a democracy. And if you as a citizen happen to be too much inconvenienced by a particular decree you can always appeal to judicial proceedings, or move elsewhere. Again by logic you cannot achieve a solution that can leave everyone satisfied, but on a practical level it does look like the best compromise. It is not a perfect solution, but certainly seems like the most practical.